No. 14820
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1980
THE STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
CHARLES W. DOLAN,
D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f C a s c a d e .
Honorable J o e l G. Roth, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
R o b e r t Ernrnons a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
S a r a h Power, L e g a l I n t e r n , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s O f f i c e ,
a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana
J. F r e d Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Mark Barer a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
Submitted: September 9 , 1980
/q
Decided: J i - 4uJ
Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C. S h e e h y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
D e f e n d a n t C h a r l e s W. Dolan a p p e a l s f r o m t h e judgment o f
t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Cascade County. The
d e f e n d a n t was a c c u s e d by i n f o r m a t i o n o f r o b b e r y and t h e f t .
F o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t was f o u n d g u i l t y o f t h e f t
b u t n o t g u i l t y of robbery. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s
s e n t e n c e and judgment and d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s t - t r i a l m o t i o n s .
I n t h i s a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h a t a number o f e r r o r s
were c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g h i s t r i a l :
1. The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a t t r i a l
was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e a c h a r g e o f t h e f t .
2. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o
c o n s i d e r t h e t e s t i m o n y of John Grissom, an a c c o m p l i c e i n t h e
t h e £t .
3. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n
t o the jury.
4. The p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c l o s i n g r e m a r k s t o t h e j u r y
c o n t a i n e d i m p e r m i s s i b l e comments on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d e c i s i o n t o
p r e s e n t no e v i d e n c e t o r e b u t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e .
W f i n d no m e r i t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t r e v e r s i b l e
e
e r r o r was c o m m i t t e d a t t r i a l . W a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e
e
D i s t r i c t Court.
A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 : 0 0 a.m. on S e p t e m b e r 22, 1 9 7 8 , a
"holdup" o c c u r r e d a t t h e C r o s s r o a d s Truck S t o p i n G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana. A man b r a n d i s h i n g a h a n d g u n , e n t e r e d t h e t r u c k s t o p and
demanded t h a t t h e c a s h i e r g i v e him t h e t r u c k - s t o p ' s money. The
c a s h i e r d e s c r i b e d t h e gunman a s w e a r i n g b l a c k t e n n i s s h o e s , b l u e
denim j e a n s , a g r e e n j a c k e t , g l o v e s , a r e d h e l m e t and a w h i t e
c l o t h over h i s face. The t r u c k s t o p c a s h i e r g a v e t h e gunman
a p p r o x i m a t e l y $5,000 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s and C a n a d i a n c u r r e n c y f r o m
t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r and t h e t r u c k s t o p o p e r a t o r ' s o f f i c e . The
gunman t o o k t h e money and f l e d .
The c a s h i e r r e p o r t e d t h e h o l d u p t o t h e G r e a t F a l l s
police. D e t e c t i v e David War r i n g t o n , a s s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e
holdup, apprehended John Grissom, a s u s p e c t i n t h e holdup.
Grissom admitted h i s involvement i n t h e holdup t o D e t e c t i v e
W a r r i n g t o n , s t a t i n g t h a t h e had d r i v e n t h e " g e t a w a y c a r " f o r
the defendant. Following h i s c o n f e s s i o n t o Warrington, Grissom
a g r e e d t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t i n e x c h a n g e f o r immunity.
The prosecution presented s i x w i t n e s s e s t o prove its
charges against defendant including t h e truck s t o p cashier, t h e
t r u c k s t o p o p e r a t o r , two G r e a t F a l l s d e t e c t i v e s i n c l u d i n g
W a r r i n g t o n , W i l l i a m S t e e l e , a f r i e n d o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , and J o h n
Grissom. G r i s s o m l s t e s t i m o n y , however, p r o v i d e d t h e key e v i d e n c e
l i n k i n g defendant t o t h e t r u c k s t o p holdup. Grissom t e s t i f i e d
d e f e n d a n t "held-up" t h e t r u c k s t o p w e a r i n g t h e same g a r b a s
d e s c r i b e d by t h e c a s h i e r , t h a t d e f e n d a n t showed him t h e money
t a k e n f r o m t h e t r u c k s t o p , and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d e s c r i b e d t o
him i n d e t a i l t h e holdup sequence of e v e n t s .
Key c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e o f G r i s s o m l s t h e f t a c c o u n t
was g i v e n by t h e t e s t i m o n y o f W i l l i a m S t e e l e . A t t h e t i m e of t h e
h o l d u p , S t e e l e was a b a r t e n d e r a t a l o c a l b a r . Steele testified
t h a t h e v i s i t e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t a few d a y s a f t e r t h e h o l d u p w h i l e
a t work i n t h e b a r , and t h a t d e f e n d a n t o r d e r e d s e v e r a l r o u n d s o f
d r i n k s a t t h e b a r and p a i d f o r e a c h r o u n d w i t h C a n a d i a n money.
When S t e e l e a s k e d d e f e n d a n t where h e g o t t h e C a n a d i a n money,
S t e e l e t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t f i r s t r e p l i e d t h a t t h e money was l e f t
o v e r f r o m a t r i p t o Canada. L a t e r t h a t e v e n i n g , however,
d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d t o S t e e l e t h a t t h e C a n a d i a n money was p a r t o f
t h e t r u c k s t o p h o l d u p money.
D u r i n g t h e t r i a l , S t e e l e c o u l d n o t remember w h e t h e r
d e f e n d a n t s a i d , " I got t h e money f r o m t h e C r o s s r o a d s " o r "I r o b b e d
t h e Crossroads". Detective Warrington t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s p o l i c e
r e p o r t o f a n i n t e r v i e w w i t h S t e e l e made f o l l o w i n g t h e h o l d u p
i n d i c a t e d S t e e l e t o l d t h e d e t e c t i v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s a i d , "I
held-up t h e Crossroads."
D e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e f o l l o w i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n
of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e . C o u n s e l f o r d e f e n d a n t made a m o t i o n
t o the court for a directed verdict, claiming i n s u f f i c i e n t
e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o p r o v e t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e . Defense
counsel argued t h a t l e g a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence
was o f f e r e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e G r i s s o m ' s t e s t i m o n y . The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t acknowledged t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d was n o t
s t r o n g , b u t t h e c o u r t h e l d t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e was
l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o support Grissom's testimony. The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n and a l l o w e d t h e c a s e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o
t h e j u r y f o l l o w i n g i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e . The
j u r y f o u n d d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f t h e f t and n o t g u i l t y o f r o b b e r y .
I s s u e No. 1: S u f f i c i e n c y of t h e Evidence
Count I1 o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g e s ". . . d e f e n d a n t did
p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly o b t a i n o r e x e r t u n a u t h o r i z e d c o n t r o l o v e r
p r o p e r t y , c a s h i n U.S. and C a n a d i a n c u r r e n c y , o f a v a l u e o f more
t h a n $150.00, owned by C r o s s r o a d s T r u c k S t o p , w i t h t h e p u r p o s e
of d e p r i v i n g t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y . " Count I , t h e r o b b e r y
c o u n t , c h a r g e d d e f e n d a n t committed t h i s t h e f t w h i l e p l a c i n g t h e
t r u c k s t o p c a s h i e r i n f e a r of immediate b o d i l y i n j u r y . In order
t o prove t h e robbery charge, t h e prosecution o f f e r e d t h e
c a s h i e r ' s t e s t i m o n y of f e a r of i n j u r y . While t e s t i f y i n g , t h e
c a s h i e r f u r t h e r provided important testimony regarding t h e
amount o f money t a k e n by t h e gunman d u r i n g t h e h o l d u p .
Defense c o u n s e l a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u r y must have d i s t r u s t e d
t h e c a s h i e r ' s t e s t i m o n y b e c a u s e t h e j u r y found d e f e n d a n t
n o t g u i l t y of r o b b e r y . Defense counsel a s s e r t s t h a t
t h e c a s h i e r ' s t e s t i m o n y i s c r i t i c a l t o p r o v e t h a t a t h e f t was
committed. I f the jury disbelieved the cashier, the defendant
claims t h e evidence then is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o prove t h e t h e f t a s
charged.
W r e j e c t t h i s argument.
e The d e f e n d a n t e r r o n e o u s l y
a r g u e s t h a t a l l of t h e c a s h i e r ' s t e s t i m o n y m u s t be d i s r e g a r d e d .
The c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y s p e c i f i c a l l y a b o u t i t s r i g h t t o
b e l i e v e o r d i s b e l i e v e any p o r t i o n o f a w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y . In
S t a t e v. DeGeorge ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. 35, 566 P.2d 59, w e h e l d t h a t
" [ t l h i s C o u r t h a s f r e q u e n t l y o b s e r v e d t h a t d i s p u t e d q u e s t i o n s of
f a c t and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d on
appeal b u t t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n of such m a t t e r s is w i t h i n t h e
p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y . A s long a s t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence
t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , i t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l .
(Citations omitted.)" A r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s
s u f f i c i e n t evidence supports t h e jury v e r d i c t i n t h i s case.
The d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s f u r t h e r t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t
show t h e C r o s s r o a d s T r u c k S t o p l e g a l l y owned t h e s t o l e n money.
T h i s argument f a i l s . The p r o s e c u t i o n p r o v e d t h r o u g h t h e
c a s h i e r ' s and o p e r a t o r ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e t r u c k s t o p p o s s e s s e d
t h e money s t o l e n . Proof of p o s s e s s i o n s u f f i c e s h e r e t o prove
ownership. S e e , s e c t i o n 45-2-101(40), MCA. In t h i s case, the
d e f e n d a n t p r o p o s e d and t h e c o u r t a c c e p t e d a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n
p r o v i d i n g t h a t " o w n e r " s h o u l d b e d e f i n e d by t h e j u r y i n t e r m s o f
p o s s e s s i o n of p r o p e r t y .
I s s u e No. 2: Testimony of John Grissom
D e f e n d a n t a s s e r t s t h r e e e r r o r s w e r e made by t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s u s e of John Grissom as a
witness against defendant.
The f i r s t a l l e g e d e r r o r c o n c e r n s t h e c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l o f
d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r d i s c o v e r y of G r i s s o m ' s " r a p s h e e t " . This
i n f o r m a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s , c o u l d v a l i d l y b e u s e d t o damage
Grissom's c r e d i b i l i t y . I n s u p p o r t of t h i s motion, c o u n s e l f o r
d e f e n d a n t c i t e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n
D a v i s v . A l a s k a ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 415 U.S. 3 0 8 , 94 S . C t . 1 1 0 5 , 39 L.Ed.2d
347. The c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d D a v i s , b u t r e j e c t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s
motion. On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c i t e s D a v i s and c o n t e n d s t h e c o u r t
denied defendant due p r o c e s s .
W disagree.
e I n D a v i s , t h e Supreme C o u r t a s s u r e d a c r i m i n a l
d e f e n d a n t of h i s r i g h t under t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e of t h e
S i x t h Amendment t o e x p l o r e t h r o u g h c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t h e
p a r t i a l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n o f a p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s . The C o u r t
held t h a t cross-examination should be p e r m i t t e d ". . . t o expose
t o t h e j u r y t h e f a c t s from w h i c h j u r o r s , a s t h e s o l e t r i e r s of
f a c t and c r e d i b i l i t y , c o u l d a p p r o p r i a t e l y d r a w i n f e r e n c e s
r e l a t i n g t o t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e witness." A comparison of t h e
f a c t s of t h e D a v i s c a s e w i t h t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e ,
i n d i c a t e s d e f e n d a n t ' s r e l i a n c e on D a v i s i n t h i s c a s e i s
misplaced.
The D a v i s c o u r t p r o h i b i t e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l from e x p o s i n g
t o the jury the witness' criminal record. The D a v i s d e f e n d a n t
t h e r e f o r e was u n a b l e t o make a r e c o r d from which t o a r g u e a t
t r i a l the witness' b i a s o r l a c k of i m p a r t i a l i t y e x p e c t e d of a
witness. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l i n t h i s c a s e was p e r m i t t e d t o f u l l y
p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o f G r i s s o m ' s c r i m i n a l c h a r a c t e r and b i a s . The
j u r y h e r e was a w a r e o f t h e immunity b a r g a i n made b e t w e e n t h e
p r o s e c u t i o n and G r i s s o m , and o f G r i s s o m ' s c o m p l i c i t y i n t h e t r u c k
stop theft. The c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n was w e l l
w i t h i n its d i s c r e t i o n t o c o n t r o l cross-examination.
The s e c o n d and t h i r d a l l e g e d e r r o r s p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t
a r e d i r e c t a t t a c k s on t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f G r i s s o m ' s t e s t i m o n y .
D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o
s u b s t a n t i a t e Grissom's testimony. Defendant f u r t h e r
contends t h e evidence used t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h i s testimony is
-6-
inadmissible hearsay evidence.
Section 46-16-213, MCA, provides the test for sufficient
corroborating evidence of accomplice testimony:
"A conviction cannot be had on the testimony
of one responsible or legally accountable
for the same offense, as defined in
45-2-301, unless the testimony is corroborated
by other evidence which in itself and without the
aid of the testimony of the one responsible or
legally accountable for the same offense tends to
connect the defendant with the commission of the
offense. The corroboration is not sufficient if
it merely shows the commission of the offense or
the circumstances thereof."
In State v. Kemp (1979), Mont . , 597 P.2d
96, 36 St.Rep. 1215, we summarized Montana case law of
corroboration of accomplice testimony as follows:
"The sufficiency of evidence necessary to
corroborate accomplice testimony is a question
of law. (Citations omitted.) In defining the
quantum and character of proof required to
corroborate accomplice testimony, a substantial
body of case law has evolved.
"To be sufficient, corroborating evidence must
show more than that a crime was in fact committed
or the circumstances of its commission. (Citation
omitted.) It must raise more than a suspicion of
the defendant's involvement in, or opportunity to
commit, the crime charged. (Citation omitted.)
But corroborative evidence need not be sufficient,
by itself, to support a defendant's conviction
or even to make out a prima facie case against
him. (Citations omitted.). ..
". . . each case must be examined on its particular
facts to determine if the evidence tends, in and of
itself, to prove defendant's connection with the crime
charged. "
The key evidence corroborating Grissom's testimony was included
in the testimonies of Steele and Warrington. The evidence
indicates defendant admitted to Steele that the defendant
"robbed" or "held-up" the truck stop, and that Steele reported to
Warrington defendant's admitted involvement in the holdup. This
evidence is sufficient corroborating evidence for the admissions
of Grissom's testimony.
We disagree with defendant's contention that this
evidence is inadmissible hearsay. This evidence is not hearsay.
R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( l ) ( A ) , Mont.R.Evid., provides: "(d) Statements
which a r e n o t h e a r s a y . A s t a t e m e n t i s n o t h e a r s a y if1'-- (1)
P r i o r s t a t e m e n t by w i t n e s s . The d e c l a r a n t t e s t i f i e s a t t h e t r i a l
o r h e a r i n g and i s s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e
s t a t e m e n t , and t h e s t a t e m e n t i s ( A ) i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s
testimony . . ." R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) Mont.R.Evid. provides: "(d)
S t a t e m e n t s which a r e n o t h e a r s a y . A statement is not hearsay i f :
... (2) A d m i s s i o n by a p a r t y - o p p o n e n t . The s t a t e m e n t i s
o f f e r e d a g a i n s t a p a r t y and i s ( A ) h i s own s t a t e m e n t . . ." The
s t a t e m e n t made by d e f e n d a n t t o S t e e l e i s a n a d m i s s i o n by a p a r t y
opponent t o t h e a c t i o n . The s t a t e m e n t made by S t e e l e t o
Warrington is a p r i o r s t a t e m e n t of t h e w i t n e s s S t e e l e .
I s s u e No. 3: Jury Instructions
Defendant c o n t e n d s t h e c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r
by r e j e c t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p o s e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g
a c c o m p l i c e t e s t i m o n y and o r a l a d m i s s i o n s , and f u r t h e r e r r e d by
g i v i n g t h e "Sandstrom" j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n .
G r i s s o m ' s t e s t i m o n y was a c c o m p l i c e t e s t i m o n y . Steele's
t e s t i m o n y i n c l u d e d t h e a d m i s s i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t o f h i s
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e holdup. D e f e n d a n t p r o p o s e d a number o f j u r y
i n s t r u c t i o n s regarding t h e weight t h e jury should assign t o
testimony. Each o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s was r e j e c t e d by t h e c o u r t .
W agree with defendant t h a t cautionary instructions regarding
e
a c c o m p l i c e t e s t i m o n y and o r a l a d m i s s i o n s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n
included i n t h e c o u r t ' s jury i n s t r u c t i o n s . W e disagree with
defendant's contention t h a t the c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o give these
i n s t r u c t i o n s amounts t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r .
S e c t i o n 26-1-303(4), MCA, provides t h e following:
"The j u r y i s t o be i n s t r u c t e d by t h e c o u r t on a l l
proper occasions:
" ( 4 ) t h a t t h e testimony of an accomplice ought t o
be viewed w i t h d i s t r u s t , and t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e
o r a l admissions of a party with caution."
The c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s p r o f f e r e d by d e f e n d a n t w e r e
e l a b o r a t e and m i s l e a d i n g . T h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s d i d n o t employ t h e
s i m p l e s t a t u t o r y language of s e c t i o n 26-1-303(4), MCA. The
proposed a c c o m p l i c e t e s t i m o n y i n s t r u c t i o n s p l a c e d unneeded
e m p h a s i s on t h e u n r e l i a b i l i t y and i n v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e o f G r i s s o m ' s
testimony. The p r o p o s e d o r a l a d m i s s i o n s i n s t r u c t i o n e r r o n e o u s l y
included " c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n " language.
The e r r o r c r e a t e d b y t h e c o u r t ' s o m i s s i o n i n i t s
i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s e v i d e n c e was m i n i m i z e d by o t h e r
instructions. These i n s t r u c t i o n s were d i r e c t e d t o t h e testimony
of p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s because t h e defendant d i d n o t p r e s e n t
any w i t n e s s e s . These i n s t r u c t i o n s provided:
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t you may a l s o c o n s i d e r a n y
demonstrated b i a s , prejudice o r h o s t i l i t y of a w i t -
n e s s toward t h e d e f e n d a n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e weight
t o be a c c o r d e d t o h i s t e s t i m o n y .
" I n w e i g h i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a n y w i t n e s s , you
s h o u l d t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t h i s i n t e r e s t o r want o f
i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e s u l t of t h i s c a s e ...
" E v e r y w i t n e s s i s presumed t o s p e a k t h e t r u t h . T h i s
p r e s u m p t i o n , h o w e v e r , may b e r e p e l l e d by t h e manner
i n w h i c h h e t e s t i f i e d , by t h e c h a r a c t e r o f h i s
t e s t i m o n y , o r by e v i d e n c e a f f e c t i n g h i s r e p u t a t i o n
f o r t r u t h , honesty, i n t e g r i t y o r h i s motives . . ."
D e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e c o u r t c o m m i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by
g i v i n g t h e "Sandstrom" i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y . I n s t r u c t i o n No.
17 p r o v i d e d : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e l a w p r e s u m e s t h a t a
person i n t e n d s t h e o r d i n a r y consequences of h i s voluntary a c t s . "
T h i s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n is i d e n t i c a l t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n
h e l d t o b e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n S a n d s t r o m v. Montana ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 442
U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 39. I n a number o f r e c e n t
c a s e s w e have c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t of t h e Sandstrom d e c i s i o n .
S e e , S t a t e v. Hamilton ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 605 P.2d 1 1 2 1 , 37
St.Rep. 70; S t a t e v . McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 608 P.2d
428, 37 S t . R e p . 325; S t a t e v . Wogamon ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. ,
610 P.2d 1 1 6 1 , 37 S t . R e p . 840: and S t a t e v . M a r t i n e z ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,
Mont. , P. 2d , 37 S t . R e p . 982.
I n Hamilton, we h e l d t h e Sandstrom-type i n s t r u c t i o n s t o
be h a r m l e s s e r r o r s i n c e t h e e v i d e n c e o f i n t e n t i n t h a t c a s e was
overwhelming g i v e n t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e c a s e . In t h i s
c a s e , t h e Sandstrom i n s t r u c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s harmless e r r o r . The
e v i d e n c e of i n t e n t i s o v e r w h e l m i n g . The e s s e n t i a l i s s u e i n t h i s
c a s e i s t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e masked gunman, n o t t h e g u n m a n ' s
intent. I n d e e d , t h e d e f e n d a n t p r o p o s e d , and t h e c o u r t a c c e p t e d a
s p e c i f i c jury instruction regarding identity:
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e
r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n
f a c t t h e c r i m i n a l a c t o r , and n e c e s s i t a t e s y o u r r e -
s o l v i n g any c o n f l i c t o r u n c e r t a i n t y i n t e s t i m o n y on
that issue.
"The b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s on t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t h
reference t o every element of t h e crimes charged,
and t h i s b u r d e n i n c l u d e s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g
beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e d e -
f e n d a n t a s t h e p e r p e t r a t o r of t h e crimes charged."
I s s u e No. 4 I m p e r m i s s i b l e Remarks i n t h e P r o s e c u t i o n ' s C l o s i n g
Argument
The d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s a p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s
c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y denied d e f e n d a n t a f a i r t r i a l .
Defendant a t t a c k s t h e remarks i n c l o s i n g argument a s an
i m p e r m i s s i b l e comment on t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no
evidence following t h e c l o s e of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n case-in-chief.
The a l l e g e d p r e j u d i c i a l r e m a r k s a r e a s f o l l o w s :
" ( B y Mr. V e r m i l l i o n : ) N O W , w h e r e d o e s Mr. D o l a n s a y
h e g o t t h e C a n a d i a n money--well, f i r s t , h e t e l l s
young B i l l S t e e l e t h a t h e w e n t o n a t r i p t o C a n a d a ,
now, t h e r e h a s b e e n no e v i d e n c e b r o u g h t b e f o r e you
t o show t h a t C h a r l e s D o l a n was e v e r i n C a n a d a , o r
t h a t h e had made a t r i p up t h e r e , and i f h e had
a c t u a l l y been up i n C a n a d a , where was t h e p r o o f ?
Canada i s n o t a t o t a l l y b a r r e n l a n d , w i t h nobody up
t h e r e , and i f h e had made a t r i p u p t o Canada t o b r i n g
back sums o f C a n a d i a n money, why s u r e l y t h e r e would
h a v e b e e n somebody, and c e r t a i n l y h e would h a v e b e e n
u p t h e r e somewhere, you know, where somebody would
h a v e s e e n him ...
" ( a f t e r a review of p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s testimony,
V e r m i l l i o n c o n t i n u e s ) N O W , l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n , w e
had i n t h i s c a s e no w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by t h e d e f e n s e ,
t o c o n t r a d i c t t h a t evidence. S u r e l y t h e r e must be
someone, some a c q u a i n t a n c e o f Mr. D o l a n ' s who c o u l d
t e s t i f y a s t o h i s v o i c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and i f h e
d i d n o t have s u c h a s p e e c h impediment, t h a t p e r s o n
c o u l d h a v e t e s t i f i e d , b u t none was c a l l e d .
" ( f o l l o w i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s c l o s i n g argument sug-
g e s t i n g a r e a s o n f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t t o be d r i v i n g
n e a r t h e t r u c k s t o p ) The same remark m i g h t be made
o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e c a l l e d no w i t n e s s e s , t o
s a y t h a t Chuck Dolan w a s n ' t t h e r e t h a t n i g h t - - "
Counsel f o r defendant o b j e c t e d contending t h e remarks of
the prosecution prejudiced defendant. Following t h i s o b j e c t i o n ,
t h e c o u r t reminded t h e j u r y t o f o l l o w o n l y i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s on
t h e law.
These remarks do n o t c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r under
t h e t e s t o f p r o s e c u t o r i a l comment w e employed i n S t a t e v .
A n d e r s o n ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 156 Mont. 1 2 2 , 476 P.2d 780:
"The t e s t i s w h e t h e r t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d was m a n i f e s t l y
i n t e n d e d o r was o f s u c h c h a r a c t e r t h a t t h e j u r y
would n a t u r a l l y and n e c e s s a r i l y t a k e i t t o be a
comment on t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e a c c u s e d t o t e s t i f y . "
The r e m a r k s made h e r e a r e s i m i l a r t o t h e r e m a r k s u s e d i n
S t a t e v. A r m s t r o n g ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 256, 552 P.2d 616. In
Armstronq, t h i s C o u r t acknowledged t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s r i g h t t o
s t r e s s t h e s t r e n g t h o f i t s own e v i d e n c e :
"While it i s t r u e t h a t t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y o f t e n
a s k e d r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s w h i c h amounted t o
comments t h a t t h e r e was ' n o e v i d e n c e ' o r ' n o
t e s t i m o n y ' t o r e b u t t h e i n f e r e n c e s r a i s e d by t h e
s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e , nowhere d o e s i t a p p e a r t h a t
t h e s e comments would n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l y t h a t de-
f e n d a n t was t h e o n l y s o u r c e w h i c h c o u l d n e g a t e
s t a t e ' s evidence. The most t h a t c a n b e s a i d o f t h e
c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s comments i s t h a t t h e y r e f e r r e d t o
t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no c a s e a t a l l .
C e r t a i n l y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , a s an adversary f o r t h e
s t a t e , c a n n o t be p r o h i b i t e d f r o m a r g u i n g t h e
strength of its case t o the jury. The m a n i f e s t
f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no t e s t i m o n y o f i t s
own may be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , b u t s u c h
f a c t cannot deny t h e p r o s e c u t i o n its r i g h t t o s t r e s s
t h e s t r e n g t h o f i t s own e v i d e n c e . (Citation
omitted. ) "
For t h e r e a s o n s i n c l u d e d a b o v e , w e a f f i r m t h e judgment
of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
Affirmed.
We Concur:
Chief Justice
C
w Justice
Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissents and will file a written
dissent later.